From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jul 10 17:35:56 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3394C37B7C4; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:35:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e6B0Zrw16321; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:35:53 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kernel printf %i? Message-ID: <20000710173553.J25571@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000710150556.I25571@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from green@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 08:17:11PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Brian Fundakowski Feldman [000710 17:17] wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > any objections: > > Can you give me a good reason for it? To act like the libc printf() isn't > a good reason, I mean do you think it will actually help anyone in ways > that %d doesn't? Are you noticing tons of submissions of kernel code that > have %i and don't work correctly or something? > > I just don't get it :-/ I was annoyed when I used %i and it didn't work. POLA. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message